- This topic has 11 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 5 months ago by
.
- Topic
About time someone spoke up for us
Months before the government used the budget to launch plans to tackle Motability – the scheme that leases subsidised vehicles with some disability benefits – a website started quietly spying on disabled drivers. Motability Check – run by an unknown third party and now offline – allowed members of the public to type in any number plate and (largely incorrectly) see if it was a car provided by the firm. The purpose appeared simple and disturbing: spot that neighbour who says they have a bad back and check with a few clicks if they are milking the taxpayer.
From the spring, the idea that Motability was offering disabled people “free” BMWs and Mercedes began to spread. While the rightwing press suggested someone could get a vehicle for “bed wetting” and acne, blue tick accounts on X gleefully argued the only car available to claimants should be cheap, ugly and “have MOTABILITY written on it, preferably in neon”. By October, the narrative had gone mainstream as the supposed scam of free cars was leapt on by the Conservatives and Reform UK.
Fast forward to this winter and Labour has set out plans to end £300m a year of tax breaks and remove premium brands from the scheme. Rachel Reeves even mimicked rightwing memes with her language when she announced it: Motability “was set up to protect the most vulnerable, not to subsidise the lease on a Mercedes-Benz”. Meanwhile, Kemi Badenoch said this week the Tories would ban conditions such as anxiety and ADHD outright from being eligible.
If 2025 has been the year “welfare reform” reentered the lexicon of British politics, few events sum it up more than the assault on Motability, a policy that has been a lifeline for disabled people for almost 50 years with little fuss.
This is partly a story about valid scrutiny of a multibillion-pound body handling public money. There has been a large growth in Motability recently – with the customer base rising by about 200,000 in two years to 815,000 as the nation’s health has declined and disability benefit claims increased. Similarly, it is fair to question high executive pay and the company’s reportedly large cash reserves.
Related: How Motability cuts went from a rightwing online campaign to Rachel Reeves’s budget
But it is far more a story about how a mix of misinformation, prejudice and insecurity has reignited an all-too-familiar fire: when living standards are stalling and public services failing, society turns on a minority said to be having it easy at taxpayer expense. From asylum seekers staying in hotels while locals struggle to pay the rent to benefit claimants driving a new car as workers miss the bus, this year has seen a fixation on what certain – notably marginalised or disadvantaged – groups supposedly get.
We are in an era that is in many ways defined by a sense the state no longer provides what the public needs: not just the NHS and schools but libraries, social care, parks and so much else. Add in the fact the squeezed middle is being taxed more and millions of others continue to struggle for the basics, and the idea that there are disabled people getting luxury cars handed to them naturally fuels resentment. That’s only compounded when large sections of the media and political class propagate the now common idea that many of those in receipt of support are not really disabled (or for that matter, tax-paying workers).
But is any of it actually true? I spoke to experts about the popular claim that the Motability scheme is easy to exploit. “Accessing Motability requires extensive applications, medical evidence, invasive examination, testing and proof of your impairment, and reapplication for support every few years,” said Sophia Kleanthous from Transport for All. “We support many disabled people who have been wrongly denied support, because they’ve struggled to prove that they meet this high bar.”
What about the idea someone can get a car because of allegedly minor conditions, such as acne? “Government data shows there are just five people claiming enhanced mobility [of the gateway benefit, personal independence payments] for acne,” says James Taylor from Scope. “The stats don’t show co-conditions, so those people could have multiple other disabilities too.” That means the handful of people with acne who are eligible for a Motability car – but are not necessarily leasing one – could have, say, arthritis as well.
The British Association of Dermatologists also confirmed to me that there are ways acne might impact mobility, including rare forms that can cause joint pain. GB News pundits, funnily enough, aren’t medically qualified.
That disabled people should not get a luxury car on the scheme might similarly sound reasonable at first. But take a look at the data and only 6% of Motability’s fleet is made up of non-economy brands, while the cost to the taxpayer is exactly the same due to the fact disabled people already pay the extra fee themselves.
“We all choose a car that meets our requirements – say, one that fits the kids. Disabled people do that too,” says Kleanthous. “We might need an adapted car with enough height to carry us in our wheelchair or a boot that self closes. Some accessibility features are only on higher-spec vehicles. But the biggest issue is choice. Motability allows us to have a car we need, but we should still be able to choose to pay more to have the car we want.”
Look ahead to the new year and more of this is on the horizon, from the government’s plan for special educational needs and disabilities (Send) amid talk of parents abusing the system, to Wes Streeting’s review of the supposed “over-diagnosis” of mental health issues in light of rising sickness benefit claims.
Such ideas appear to be salvation to Keir Starmer’s ailing administration, but it may well find that these only add to its problems. Just as with immigration, capitulating to critics of Motability will never be enough. The goalposts always move: first the issue is said to be disabled people having luxury cars, then tax breaks, then any car at all.
There is a way out of this: raising living standards, well-funded public services, and a spirited defence of the safety net and those who rely on it. It will also require an honest conversation about why we are collectively getting sicker and addressing the underlying causes rather than stubbornly assuming there is an epidemic of healthy people faking. That is not a quick fix, but it is the only one that will help heal an increasingly broken social fabric. Making it harder for a disabled person to leave the house is a dark and false solution to a genuine crisis.
Frances Ryan is a Guardian columnist
- Replies
It’s a very good article, but I take issue with the heading. Let’s not forget that the government that has implemented this cull on the Motability scheme is a Labour one.
It’s a very good article, but I take issue with the heading. Let’s not forget that the government that has implemented this cull on the Motability scheme is a Labour one.
This Labour government is only a Labour government in name. They are trying to appeal to Reform voters and haven’t got a clue.
The Polo GTI was deleted from the scheme not sure why as Mini Cooper S still on scheme apparently disabled are not allowed any choice only basics so go into a Motability car showroom cars will have signs on NOT ALLOWED ON MOTABILITY when you ask they say no due to Gov interference to which you say that is not a luxury high class car.
Loving the latest parliamentary debates on the subject. Apparently people are getting a “free motability car” – cant wait for mine.
Debate already made the Daily Mirror!
The Department for Work and Pensions has provided an update on alterations to the Motability service following heavy criticism. This week the Conservatives vowed to prevent people with mental health conditions from accessing a programme intended to assist disabled benefit recipients in obtaining vehicles through the welfare system.
During yesterday’s House of Commons session, Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions) Sir Stephen Timms revealed that certain ‘tax reliefs’ would be scrapped next July. The government has chosen to prohibit luxury marques such as BMW and Mercedes from being utilised.
The Government has confirmed that VAT will be applied to Advance Payments and Insurance Premium Tax will be imposed on Scheme leases, coming into force from July 2026.
Motability has stated that the modification will boost the expense of a lease on the Scheme, with the organisation expecting ‘the average Advance Payment (upfront cost) of a vehicle, will increase by around £400 over the three-year package’.
When questioned by Labour’s Shaun Davies about measures being taken to enhance the scheme, Sir Stephen responded: “Changes announced at the Budget will improve value for money for taxpayers while ensuring that the Motability scheme continues to provide outstanding support for disabled people.”
Mr Davies emphasised the importance of the scheme, stating: “The Motability scheme stems from the vital principle that people with disabilities should be able to live a dignified and independent life. I have heard from several constituents about how accessible cars can help them into work and healthcare, which I welcome, but I have also heard from a number of others about those with questionable conditions being provided with cars that, quite simply, the average working family could not afford.”
In response, Sir Stephen said: “I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I would be happy to meet him. Motability is an important scheme that does an important job. Some tax reliefs will be removed in July. Existing leases will not be affected, and neither will wheelchair-adapted vehicles. There will still be vehicles, with no up-front payment, that are affordable solely through the mobility component of personal independence payment, so the scheme will continue to do a great job but will give better value for money for taxpayers.”
Helen Whately, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, stated this week that the programme, designed to assist people with severe disabilities, cost £3bn last year and claimed it is now being accessed far more widely, including for conditions such as tennis elbow, acne and ADHD.
She stated: “So we’re saying something like Motability should be go back to what it is intended for helping people with severe disabilities, not for instance, whether it’s tennis elbow, acne or, as I just said, ADHD as reasons for getting a free motability car funded by the taxpayer, and I should say, and this is one of the things that’s become so unfair about our benefits system.”
In yesterday’s Commons debate, Liberal Democrat John Milne challenged: “The shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions recently stated that ‘millions are getting benefits for anxiety or ADHD along with a free Motability car.’ That is clearly nonsense, because only 200,000 claimants-at most-would be eligible to apply in the first place, and many of them also have a physical disability, which is the real reason for the car. Does the Minister agree that this must rank as one of the least accurate claims ever made by a politician, despite the strong competition?”.
To which Sir Stephen responded: “Well, choosing the most misleading claim is a tough contest, but the hon. Gentleman is right. The shadow Secretary of State’s colleagues introduced PIP, with the current criteria, in 2013. They then had 11 years to change it if they thought doing so was necessary, but they did absolutely nothing. My review will look at the eligibility criteria for the mobility component of PIP.
“So we’re saying something like Motability should be go back to what it is intended for helping people with severe disabilities, not for instance, whether it’s tennis elbow, acne or, as I just said, ADHD as reasons for getting a free motability car funded by the taxpayer, and I should say, and this is one of the things that’s become so unfair about our benefits system.”
“The shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions recently stated that ‘millions are getting benefits for anxiety or ADHD along with a free Motability car.’ That is clearly nonsense, because only 200,000 claimants-at most-would be eligible to apply in the first place, and many of them also have a physical disability, which is the real reason for the car. Does the Minister agree that this must rank as one of the least accurate claims ever made by a politician, despite the strong competition?”.
“Well, choosing the most misleading claim is a tough contest, but the hon. Gentleman is right. The shadow Secretary of State’s colleagues introduced PIP, with the current criteria, in 2013. They then had 11 years to change it if they thought doing so was necessary, but they did absolutely nothing. My review will look at the eligibility criteria for the mobility component of PIP.”
Paulette Hamilton emphasised the significance of the scheme, stating: “A constituent of mine with severe health needs recently told me that she gained employment only after she was able to learn to drive and then secure a car through the Motability scheme. Can the Minister set out what further steps the Department is taking to ensure that disabled people with health needs receive the support they need to gain access to work and to take part fully in the things they enjoy?”.
In response, Sir Stephen said: “There is a great deal of work to be done: the disability employment gap has been stuck at around 30 percentage points ever since 2010. We have talked already today about Motability, which is key for enabling many disabled people to get to work. After the changes next July, there will still be a wide range of vehicles available in exchange solely for mobility benefit. Access to Work is also extremely important. We consulted earlier in the year through our Green Paper on reform to Access to Work, so that we can help and support more people, and we will be bringing forward proposals along those lines in the new year.”
Regarding the changes in the November budget, Motability commented: “The tax changes will increase the cost of a lease on the Scheme and we anticipate the average Advance Payment (upfront cost) of a vehicle, will increase by around £400 over the three-year package. We will continue to provide a range of around 40 to 50 vehicles available to lease with no upfront payment.
“Changes to the Scheme’s package are expected to be introduced from July 2026. Motability Operations, which runs the Scheme, will begin engaging with customers about the proposed changes in spring 2026. Proposed changes to the leasing package will undergo disability impact assessment by the Motability Foundation, which oversees the Scheme, before any changes are approved, announced and implemented. As the Scheme evolves and we fully understand the impacts changes may have on disabled people, the Foundation will also need to consider how its grant programmes best support those most in need.”
Very strange that cars that cost more or the same will not be allowed and I myself am not even a fan of so called Luxury brands but are they Luxury I do not think they are only by badge but even the basic lexus is cost effective for motability as it comes top in reliability buy so does honda which the there is not much choice on scheme for them and also Toyota and Mini is fairly good in reliability.
This is modern day politics.
The left do it to the right, the right to the left. The centrics to either side, and the far left and right to anyone with a pulse.
Restraint, truth, integrity, and fair play left Westminster decades ago. A vote is priceless, and why mine goes into the bin.
Life is worth much more than an MPs desire to be a someone.
Can someone explain me in simple words who presently is eligible for Motability, please?
My understanding was that any person who receives enhanced mobility benefit. Either via WPMS or PIP.
If this is the case, did they change the criteria for enhanced mobility and now it also includes mental health related checkboxes?
Sent from a mobile device.
Apologies for briefness and spelling mistakes.Motability Skoda Enyaq SportLine 85x April 2024 (unhappy customer - Ombudsman pending)
Motability Mazda CX-60 PHEV July 2023 (unhappy customer - early termination on mechanical grounds)
Motability VW Touran Family Pack May 2019 (happy customer)What utrter left wing nonsense, being uesd to justify those who voted for this Marxist bunch of liars.
If the left gave a damn, they would have, as per the welfare bill, voted it down. They didn’t, because in their minds, no one should have a choice of car, at all should drive a single model, from state owned factories.
The blame stands squarely with those that voted two tier Starmer into piwer, and those “badge bunnies” who chose their mobility car on tge perceived premium badge on it, to show off to the neighbours in their social housing.
The uniparty has been gunning for motabiluty for years, with the majority of peopke supporting them, whether fir jealous reasons, or a perceived sense of fair play.
Right wing? What a crock
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.